Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Supported by

Obama Nudges India To Lead

By Nicholas Kristof November 8, 2010 8:59 amNovember 8, 2010 8:59 am

President Obama gave a fine speech this morning to the Indian parliament — and to China and Pakistan, which clearly were intended audiences as well. That emphasis on how democracy isn’t an impediment for a developing country seeking economic growth was all about China. Likewise the stress on the links between two great democracies amounted to a studied contrast with Sino-U.S. relations, especially in the aftermath of the Liu Xiaobo Nobel Peace Prize.

The headlines about the Obama speech have mostly been about his backing for a permanent Indian seat on the U.N. Security Council. I think that was a throwaway line. It just won’t happen. People have been talking about the need for reform of the Security Council for decades, because it’s ridiculous that membership is based on who won World War II. But just because something is ridiculous doesn’t mean it’s possible to change it. The existing Perm Five mostly resist change that would dilute their influence: why on earth would France want to give up such an important source of global power? And this isn’t something that Obama is going to use his political capital to push for. So it’s a nice applause line in Delhi, but don’t expect more.

On the other hand, Obama nudged India a couple of times — always in the context of effusive praise, so as not to raise Indian hackles — and both were important. One was about improving Indian-Pakistani relations. The truth is that if we want to save American lives in Afghanistan and reduce militancy in the entire Af-Pak region, we need progress between Pakistan and India on Kashmir. A peace deal on Kashmir (which is not utterly inconceivable) would cut the legs out from under Pakistani militancy, and it would also let the Pakistani military focus on its western border rather than its eastern border.

India resists any U.S. role in mediating the conflict, but we can nudge and encourage the parties, and it’s good to see Obama doing that. In addition, Prime Minister Singh took heat for his dovish reaction to the (Pakistani-planned) Mumbai terror attacks, for his restraint and lack of military response was a real tribute to his leadership. Obama gave him some political cover for that dovishness and for efforts to improve ties with Pakistan, and that was good to see. And it was useful for Obama to remind India that no country has a greater stake in a stable Pakistan than India. While India was wonderfully restrained after Mumbai, it hasn’t done all it can to negotiate a peace deal over Kashmir or to soothe the unrest in Kashmir, and it’s fair to hold India’s feet to the fire over that.

The second nudge concerned Burma. India has been utterly irresponsible in winking at the Burmese regime instead of standing up to it, and more broadly it has never taken an international role commensurate with its significance. As Obama said, speaking of the latest Burmese “election”:

Faced with such gross violations of human rights, it is the responsibility of the international community — especially leaders like the United States and India — to condemn it. If I can be frank, in international fora, India has often avoided these issues. But speaking up for those who cannot do so for themselves is not interfering in the affairs of other countries. It’s not violating the rights of sovereign nations. It’s staying true to our democratic principles. It’s giving meaning to the human rights that we say are universal.

The truth is that the world needs developing countries as leaders on political and humanitarian issues, and India would be a natural. The U.S. and other developed countries can’t play that role, because we’re regarded as heavy-handed imperialists with secret agendas. China can’t play that role because it’s too authoritarian and is regarded with growing suspicion in Southeast Asia. Brazil can play it to some degree, and should, and so can South Africa. But India would be a natural leader as the conscience of the developing world, and it would be hugely important if it would speak out more forcefully about abuses in countries like Burma, Sudan, Zimbabwe. Given its experience and place in the world, India has credibility and moral and political capital, and it should use them.

What's Next

About Nicholas Kristof

This blog expands on Nicholas Kristof’s twice-weekly columns, sharing thoughts that shape the writing but don’t always make it into the 800-word text. It’s also the place where readers make their voices heard.